Media outlets avoid reporting that Senate GOP is blocking or "filibustering" Iraq amendment
On July 13, blogger Joshua Micah Marshall contrasted The New York Times' current reporting on the Republican Senate minority's use of the filibuster with its description of the then-Democratic minority's use of the tactic in 2005. Marshall compared the headline of a July 12 Times article -- "Senate Narrowly Backs Bush in Rejecting Debate on Increasing Time Between Deployments" -- to that of a June 21, 2005, Times article -- "Democrats Block a Vote on Bolton for the Second Time." Marshall asserted that the Times "is committed to forcing the filibuster back into the closet," adding: "Please stop spinning this to obscure what's actually happening" -- that is, that Republicans are filibustering or blocking up-or-down votes, as Democrats did with John Bolton's nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Marshall also highlighted a July 16 Reuters article that reported that Senate Republicans are "insisting on 60 votes" for passage of a Democratic amendment aimed at withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. A Media Matters for America survey of reports on the GOP's refusal to allow an up-or-down vote on the amendment -- offered by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI) -- turned up several others that avoid stating that Republicans are attempting to block or filibuster the amendment:
- In a July 17 Washington Post article on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) plan to hold an all-night Iraq debate on the Senate floor, staff writer Shailagh Murray reported that Reid "hoped to convince Republicans to allow a simple-majority vote on a Democratic proposal to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by next spring. But GOP leaders held firm to a 60-vote threshold for passage."
- A July 17 article in The Hill reported that Reid "said yesterday he would move to cut off debate on the majority's showpiece Iraq withdrawal plan -- Reid's second straight cloture filing on the defense authorization bill -- unless Republicans reconsider their insistence on 60-vote margins to approve war amendments."
- On the July 17 edition of NBC's Today, anchor Ann Curry reported that Reid "is planning a rare, marathon, all-night debate on the war in Iraq starting tonight in an effort to keep up the pressure on Republicans to vote to start to bring the troops home." Curry added that "Republicans call the move political theater."
- On the July 16 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, congressional correspondent Dana Bash conflated the number of votes needed to "pass" the Reed-Levin amendment with the number of votes needed to end debate. Bash reported that "[o]nly three Republicans now support the Democrats' withdrawal deadline, nowhere near enough to pass." While the support of those three Republicans would not give Democrats the 60 votes needed to approve the upcoming cloture vote -- which would end debate and allow for a simple majority vote -- it would give supporters of the amendment the simple majority of votes needed to "pass" the measure in an up-or-down vote. Host Wolf Blitzer later said that "Democrats clearly in the Senate don't have enough votes to break a filibuster."
Throughout most of Bash's report, the on-screen text read "Dems Stage All-Nighter: Anti-War Spectacle":
Moreover, as Media Matters documented, on the July 17 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, co-host Diane Sawyer reported that Reid -- rather than the Senate Republicans -- is "vow[ing] to filibuster, talking all night to close out all topics besides a vote on Iraqi troops withdrawals."
By contrast, a July 16 McClatchy Newspapers article on Reid's plan described the GOP tactic as a "filibuster":
Senate Democrats are planning an all-night session Tuesday, daring Republicans to engage in an old-fashioned filibuster over Iraq troop withdrawals rather than just threatening one.
The tactic was unlikely to deliver the 60-vote supermajority that war critics need to bypass procedural hurdles and amend a defense authorization bill so that it would require withdrawing combat troop in four months.
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday that a little late-night drama might focus more public attention on why the new Democratic majority still hadn't enacted binding antiwar legislation as it had campaigned to do.
[...]
With at least three Republicans supporting the withdrawal amendment, Reid said he could get a majority vote but was frustrated that the Republican leadership had been successful so far in blocking that vote.
From the July 17 edition of NBC's Today:
CURRY: In other news this morning, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is planning a rare, marathon, all-night debate on the war in Iraq starting tonight in an effort to keep up the pressure on Republicans to vote to start to bring the troops home. Republicans call the move political theater.
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the July 16 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: Dana, what exactly are the Democrats planning on doing?
BASH: Well, they're going to be debating, now, all night tomorrow night, Wolf. You know, pulling an all-nighter is really a tried-and-true way to get attention around here. But the reality is it may get the Democrats some good press, but not necessarily what they really need -- votes.
[begin video clip]
BASH: It will be a classic Senate spectacle. Democrats plan to roll in cots for the cameras and stage an all-night Iraq debate. Pure political theater intended to shine a spotlight on Republicans who won't vote for a deadline for troop withdrawal.
REID: They're protecting the president rather than protecting our troops.
BASH: Privately, Democrats admit their theatrics are not likely to produce GOP votes. Only three Republicans now support the Democrats' withdrawal deadline, nowhere near enough to pass. And just one other GOP senator, Maine's Susan Collins, says she is considering voting yes.
[...]
BLITZER: Well, speaking of September, the Democrats clearly in the Senate don't have enough votes to break a filibuster. They need 60 for that.
Isn't life grand ? all you have to do is wait a little and suddenly, it is the republicans who are " obstructionists '. In the meantime, where is Cheney ?
It seems in general that the media is reluctant to point out Republican hypocricy. When the GOP was pissed about a possible Democratic filibuster they didn't discuss the issue, instead Rove put out the word that fillibusters in and of themselves were un-American. The media had no problem getting that message out. Conventional wisdom has it that the media is always keyed up to point out political hypocricy. Sure doesn't seem to be the case when it comes to Republicans. Another case in point; I didn't know Vitters was one of the loud-mouths wailing that Clinton's sexcapades made him 'morally unfit' to hold office. There are some real wonderful and hilarious quotes from both him and his wife that help reveal just how deeply disingenuine the whole Clinton impeachment really was. The only reference to any of this in the media? Stewart and Colbert as usual. Has anyone seen anything about this in the MSM?
Allyson Steward voiced her commentary on ( Countdown with Keith Olberman ) noting Mrs Vitters dressed similar to what a prostitute would wear. it was a very biting commentary and it definitaly highlighted the hipocracy". They floated the idea that his wife was dressed that way so she could "win him back". Sure looks like this guy is no " family values " person.
Only three Republicans now support the Democrats' withdrawal deadline, nowhere near enough to pass.
Meaning to pass a filibuster. More than enought to pass an up/down vote though.
To pass a cloture vote that ends a filibuster. Or to override a Presidential veto.
Now who is spinless why it's none other than the media and the Republicans scared to death that Bush will have to go before the public and veto the will of the People.
Didn't all you Conservatives say Bush is a real cowboy? Then let him be a cowboy call off all those loyal Bushies falling on their sword for the baby boy and let baby boy in all his glory and in his yellow stained diapers veto this bill so that it can be written in stone, "Baby boy vetos the will of the People the war. Baby boy is all by himself in this illegal war."
But will Conservatives ever let baby boy grow up and be a man? Hell no. They will fall on their sword to protect their darling little child in his codpiece uniform.
Republicans scared to death that Bush will have to go before the public and veto the will of the People.
At this point, I think Republican lawmakers are more afraid of getting their own votes on record than about any Bush veto. Only the most die-hard regressives are still worried about what Bush thinks or does. Regressive lawmakers are more worried about campaigning next fall and trying to explain why they left our military parked in the middle of a civil war.
Well said and more on target than I am.
Totally agree and taking it a step further. The republican leadership is afraid they can't keep their troops in line anymore. If this goes to full vote, passes, and then is vetoed, the veto override vote would likely cause defections. Enough to overturn a veto? Inquiring minds want to know!
I dunno. But I think it was Gravel who proposed bringing such a vote up, letting Bush veto it, and then repeatedly bringing a vote to overturn the veto to the floor, at least once a week.
That way, you get everyone's vote On The Record every week so the folks back home can see that their rep or senator is for or against continuing this mess. It's that cleansing light on the cockroaches, rats, fungii, etc. that people mentioned elsewhere.
Actually, I believe it was Edwards. Not that it really matters, just that since this site is devoted to accuracy, I just thought I'd add my two cents (inflation-adjusted).
No, it was Gravel. During the first debate.
I wish they would announce it; it would make the Republicans look better.
Sure to the less than 30% of reality challenged Bush idolotors to the rest of the nation, no so much
If that was actually the case, that Republicans think their constituencies want to continue this disastrous war, then you'd think they'd want to get their vote on the record.
Oh yes, with the majority of the people opposing the war, it's such a boost for Republicans to refuse to deal with the issue. You really can't see anything past your own eyeballs, can you?
OK, to this please add the following:
I hear on CNN radio at 3 Pm PDT, after first getting the most important news (quarterback Michael Vick indicted for his dog fighting business, steroids found in the body of the dead wrestler who killed his family) that the all nighter is going on, and the first tape after the announcer is of Sen. Susan Collins denouncing it as a political stunt. No democrat was quoted. On the News Hour, they first played Mitch McConnell and then they played John Kerry. The sense was one of desperation for the dems.
Also: Contact the public editor at the NY Times (public@nytimes.com) about the front page story by Jeff Zeleny on Saturday July 14 concerning the tepid Lugar-Warner proposal and repub `opposition’ to the war. In this article you will find the statement-
This is false- you only need 60 votes to pass legislation for which there is threat of a fillibuster. The NYT has consistently refused to call it such in the last several weeks. Let them know we are fed up!
Where is the media reporting that the Democrats are blocking 5 war-related bills that the Republicans plus a few Democrats have a majority on, but less than 60%?
AGAIN NOT SURPRISE ABOUT THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA. IF THIS WAS A REPUBLICAN DOING THIS THEY WOULD BE PRAISED.TOO BAD REID DIDN'T HAVE THE BALLS TO DO THIS WHEN THIS VOTE FIRST CAME UP, HE AND OTHER DEMS HAD TO GO HOME AND HEAR IT FROM THERE VOTERS THAT THEY WERE NOT HAPPY FOR LETTING BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS OFF AND NOT STANDING UP TOO THEN. BUT WHEN IT'S AN DEMOCRATE IT'S A SPECTACLE. THE REAL SPECTACLE IS HOW ROVE GOT THE LAPDOG RIGHT-WING MEDIA TOO GET OFF THE SUBJECT OF THE BAD REPORT THAT CAME OUT ABOUT IRQA AND THE SUBJECT BACK ON THERE TRUMP CARD THE BOGGIE MAN"TERROR".
BUSH will never run for office again. Neither will Cheney. It costs them NOTHING to defy America, and to get brave American soldiers killed and maimed daily just to be stubborn, and to keep from having to admit their huge mistake in Iraq.
But SENATORS ... they're quite different. They hope to win RE-election, and defying 70% of the electorate is not about "principled leadership" as Bush can claim (disingenuously, but that's his story) ... instead it is about POLITICAL SURVIVAL for these senators. They cannot afford to ignore the will of the people, not and and expect to keep their jobs.
So the game here is to POSTPONE the game, call it on account of rain or whatever, ANYTHING to avoid going on the record with their Bush support.
When push comes to shove on getting out of Iraq ... and it will come sooner rather than later ... you can BET the GOP Senators will vote according to Political Survival, and any waning support for Bush's indefensible position and policy will vanish.
They're just delaying the inevitable, as long as they can, which is perhaps politically wise in the short term, but every day they delay means it is THEY who are responsible for the continuing senseless deaths and maimings in this War Of Bush's Choice.
I can't figure out something. Surely it is crystal clear that this occupation/invasion/crusade is now going to go down in history as a worse mistake than Viet Nam, more like the Cromwell years in Ireland. (only took 350 years to settle that ). Why for the love of pete are any senators/congress person still supporting this?
Leave it to the biased media outlets shoving their opinion down our throats. There should be a fairness doctrine for all TV and all news papers as well. This way people can form their own opinion from the actual facts.
I second that. Bring back Fairness to the public airwaves!
Tactics are always at work, tirelessly waging this war of language and process. Take for example this Carlson woman's attacks on Obama. It's dated the 11th of the month, but she didn't show up on the home page that long ago, it was Savage. So she gets to call him a wimp and shoot her mouth off, but she ends up too much the wimp to take her medicine here.
The jokes on her and the republican red army. Obviously the more defenseless sacred cows are kept in a yard somewhere else before being shown at the fair. They still moo loud.
Speaking of last night's session this is probably the best video clip from the all-nighter. Senator Mary Landrieu gives a heartfelt speech on the floor of the senate. This link is a tad long but totally worth watching!
VIDEO:http://beta.redlasso.com/Community/ClipPlayer.aspx?i=8d314ed8-57a0-4427-bfe7-f652600f7683
I saw this live and she hit it out of the park. I wish more Dems had her fire. I especially enjoyed her quick "No!" to someone who asked if they could ask her a question. She didn't miss a beat and went right back into taking it to Lamar! Alexander who spoke before her. The highlight of the evening for sure.
Excellent speach, I see how she got elected in a red state, could not agree more with her stand on Bin Laden.
The media and the Republicans are on the exact same page once again. Ignore their hypocrisy that they care about the troops or the war. They only care about their party image and protecting the President. IF they really cared about the troops they would vote on the Iraq plans being put forward. Of course neither Republicans nor the media will point out the obvious...that the Republicans want to be able to say one thing but then do something totally opposite. As long as they can prevent a vote on the amendment they won't have to risk voting against their leader and can still go to the media and "speak out."
However, I do agree with the media that this is a spectale on the part of Republicans. If the Dems were serious about getting this put to a vote, they wouldn't have announced their plans in advance and how long they will go on for. All this did was give Republicans a chance to clear their schedules and prepare ways to kill the time and run out the clock. Who cares? Why would Republicans change their obstruction when they know how long it will take to wait out the clock?
If the Democrats were more than just talk they would have just done this without any warning, and then kept going until somebody caved. If they want action, they can't just be tough for a night because REpublicans will wait it out.
From the very giddyup, corporate media framed this as a political stunt, theater, and a hollywood stunt that would accomplish nothing. Not a single mention that the Republicans were obstructing. A visitor from outer space would have had difficulty figuring out what the core issue was. Other than critiques and complaining emails, is there a way to challenge media outlets when they are up for license renewal? Is it even feasible to think of a campaign to restore the fairness doctrine, and perhaps even more?
If implemented you would not like the fair-mess doctrine either....your views would be aired at 2:00 AM Sunday morning.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfm
No one would watch, listen, advertisers would not buy time, program would shrink because of ratings....splat.
I am sick and tired of these so-called unbiased news outlets and their portrayal of the democrats. Perhaps they along with Karl (the fat head) rove should be put on a plane and sent to Bagdad to defend King George's failed policy of democrazation of hell. We need to have our representatives pounding the word at every venue that the republican pussies are blocking the legislation to end this fiasco. Everyday we extend our stay in Iraq is another opportunity for the scum of Iraq to kill another American soldier (Marine; Airman or Sailor). None of these fine troops signed up to defend Iraq from Iraqis. They signed up to defend America. I watch these news broadcast every evening and with the exception of Keith (the truthful) Oberman, they all spew half truths and never challenge any right wing swine in regards to the lies and deceptions they tell. If they all were to die in Iraq, America would be well served. I think their king should lead them into battle with his court of jesters (dick, karl, condi, etc).
"But will Conservatives ever let baby boy grow up and be a man? Hell no. They will fall on their sword to protect their darling little child in his codpiece uniform."
Harley, the answer is NO. You missed the dog and pony show that was to be an amnesty bill, cons defeated it. This president has turned into a bungler....everyrthing he touches turns to crap. No con I know is about to fall on anything for the bungler. Most are looking forward to his last day in office as much as you are. I just hope his sitters can keep him from tinkering with the economy.