The New York Times Doesn't Understand The Rules Of The Senate
Not Quite The Parliamentarian Of Record
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Congress | Featured Stories — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
If it did, it wouldn't write an article like this one:
At a time when even President Bush acknowledges that the war in Iraq is sapping the nation's spirit, the Senate has tied itself up in procedural knots rather than engage in a debate on Iraq policy.
Given the influence that voter frustration with Iraq had on the November elections, the national unease with the mounting human and financial costs, and the raw passion on all sides, even some lawmakers say they are astounded that the buildup to the Senate fight over Mr. Bush's proposed troop increase has produced such a letdown.
"It just floors me," said Senator Amy Klobuchar, a freshman Democrat from Minnesota who campaigned against the war, as the two parties pointed fingers on Tuesday. The day before, the Senate proved unable to agree on a plan to even begin debate on a bipartisan resolution opposing the administration strategy. "People in Minnesota, when they see a debate we should be having -- whatever side they are on -- blocked by partisan politics, they don't like it," Ms. Klobuchar said.
The fact that that Democrats could pull together only 49 of the 60 votes needed to break a procedural impasse on the resolution opposing Mr. Bush's plan was a product of many competing agendas.
The "procedural impasse" in question concerns a cloture vote. For those not familiar, a cloture vote is used in the Senate to set a time limit on debate. It needs 60 votes to pass. When cloture fails, we have a filibuster. A filibuster is extended debate.
Either the New York Times ought to be attacking the Republicans for having extended the debate, or it ought not to attack them at all. It certainly shouldn't attack Republicans for having supposedly "ied [the Senate] up in procedural knots rather than engage in a debate on Iraq policy."
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | Historical Perspective On Dems' Antiwar Efforts — Comments (15) »
The New York Times Doesn't Understand The Rules Of The Senate 9 Comments (0 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Coulter on the MSNBC coverage of the Libby lynching points-up much the same.
And no. We're not at war with Eurasia, we're at war with East Asia. We've always been at war with East Asia.
Doubleplusgood.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
by the minority last year. Are we still at war with eurasia ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
If the numbers and roles were reversed, we'd have seen something like version B instead of version A:
A) "The fact that that Democrats could pull together only 49 of the 60 votes needed to break a procedural impasse..."
B) "There was bipartisan opposition to the Republicans attempted use of a procedural move to prematurely cut off debate..."
to keep its readers not only ignorant, but angry towards the enemy - the Republicans.
Facts can never get in the way of that primary mission.
shows how well it works. The Times says "jump", the loyal readers ask when they can come down. It does help that these readers in essence want to be deceived, that they want to be told what they need to hear. Self image does need to be stoked.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Standing up to the majority, being the voice of the people.
Oh, wait...
The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts
by assuming they are simply stupid rather than deceitful.
although, in their defense, it may be an understandbale mistake given that it is certainly the way the Dems have basatardized the filibuster the past few years.