For those who don’t know, Glenn Reynolds has a doppleganger who goes by the name Blue Texan aka, the Instaputz. Now to Blue Texan’s credit he is occasionally funny, though generally unfair or inaccurate. Still, being occasionally funny is harder than people think. I rarely rise above mildly amusing myself.
Outside of that though he is generally just a low brow version of Glenn Greenwald. Same tactics without the insufferable pompousness. We should be thankful for what we get, and being a light weight version of the Puppet Master he became a guest blogger at the Puppet Show as well. Frankly it was an improvement, but I come not to praise the Instaputz, but to bury him. Lovingly, but firmly.
My first issue is he takes on Glenn Reynolds, when his real complaint is with me. He doesn’t take on any arguments, no, he merely notes that a slew of major media organizations backed the AP account:
Nope.
CUTTING OFF DEBATE: The AP gets it backward. There’s a pattern to these errors, it seems.The only pattern here is Putz falsely accusing the AP.
Senate Republicans on Monday blocked debate on the Iraq war, stymieing efforts by Democrats to send even a weak bipartisan message opposing President Bush’s order of 21,500 more troops into an intensifying civil war in Baghdad and Anbar province.
The Denver Post:
Republicans blocked a Senate debate and vote on the war in Iraq on Monday, stalling consideration of a resolution opposing President Bush’s plans to send 21,500 more U.S. troops to patrol the streets of Baghdad.
The Houston Chronicle:
Prior to a test vote Monday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., appealed for an open debate on all the resolutions. He pointed to the Senate’s failure to speak out in recent years as the death toll mounted in Iraq. “As senators and Americans, we cannot allow the silence to continue,” Reid said. His appeal failed to persuade many Republicans. The measure to begin debate on the Iraq resolutions did not receive the necessary 60 votes that would make it filibuster-proof. However, the delay simply postpones the inevitable.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ appearance before Congress today to defend the Bush administration’s military budget is the first opportunity for Democrats to press the Iraq issue since Republicans blocked an attempt by Democrats to debate the topic on the Senate floor.
The Kansas City Star:
Republicans blocked the Senate from beginning debate Monday on the Iraq war.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell used a legislative maneuver to delay a debate on Iraq war policies that promised to embarrass President George W. Bush and force some Republican lawmakers to cast politically unpopular votes.
But the Bush-hating AP got the story backward.
First, let me thank Blue Texan for compiling a list of the various news media which misreported this. Now I am going to help the reader out and note that the last sentence was supposed to have a question mark at the end. The implication is that the AP couldn’t have gotten it wrong because then everyone would have gotten it wrong, and not everybody hates Bush.
Now as the writer of the original piece, I think it is important to point out that neither I, nor Reynolds, claimed this is due to any “Bush-hating.” This tendency to make up what the other person means when they say something is a sure sign of the Sock Puppet King and his minions.
I do think Reynolds believes the AP is more careful with the spin coming from Republicans than Democrats because they are more sympathetic to the Democrats views, and if that is not what he believes it is certainly what I believe. Which should matter, since it is really me who originally claimed the AP is spinning. Glenn just thought my case was sound.
“Wait Lance, are you not assuming a lot by adding a question mark and interpreting Blue Texan to mean what you say he does? Might you be engaging in a bit of Greewaldization?”
Well, I thought Blue Texan would agree with my characterization, but now looking at his comments he makes it clear:
So Michael wants us to believe that not only the AP, but a good chunk of the major newspapers are also intentionally misleading the public all because of anti-GOP bias.
So yes, his evidence is basically, “everybody else says the same thing.”
Now, we shouldn’t be too hard on the Instaputz, because he obviously had not read at that time my piece on the history of the media’s coverage of debates such as these. He might, if he had, show a bit of intellectual honesty and admit that while he disagrees with my characterization of the debate, it was curious that the “framing” of the issue changed so dramatically depending on the party.
I would also point out that the bias need not be deliberate, though he insists that is the implication behind the charge. That is in essence a straw man. It might be, it might not be deliberate. I personally think it is a herd mentality as many of the other outlets are using the AP, Times and WaPo to help put the stories together anyway.
Okay, let us move away from the poor “appeal to authority and consensus” argumentation techniques and discuss his own explanation:
Cutting off debate on measures you find politically inconvenient with a filibuster so you can introduce other measures you find less politically damaging is still cutting off debate.
Let us move away for now from the definitional problem of the concept of cutting off debate by filibustering which I covered earlier, because however ineptly stated (and I feel for him, we all do that on occasion when you are posting daily) there is a point he is getting at.
Often a filibuster is used because you cannot win a vote. Real debate isn’t the issue, so you formally rather than substantively keep debate open to force people to give in on an issue where you cannot win. What we have here is not really a filibuster in that sense, rather we have a request to keep debate open with every intention of debating. A look at the history of the terms filibuster and cloture would help him understand the concept of unlimited versus limited debate. Hopefully he will read my prior discussion.
They are debating, and that a real debate on this issue is being undertaken is shown by the fact that those wanting to end the debate couldn’t even get a majority to vote for closing the debate. That stalwart of Hagelian courage, Chuck Hagel, even voted to keep the debate going despite supporting the resolution! Or at least he did. Maybe the debate is altering his view?
This confusion of his results from a lack of close reading skills. Luckily, Michael Wade is quite adept at close reading (we all have different strengths here, but I think close reading is Michael’s forte) and generously attempts to help out the Blue Texan.
Again, Michael — it’s not complicated. The Republicans blocked a debate on the a bipartisan, non-binding resolution.
The New York Times begins:
“Republicans on Monday blocked Senate debate on a bipartisan resolution opposing President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq, leaving in doubt whether the Senate would render a judgment on what lawmakers of both parties described as the paramount issue of the day.”
And then includes:
“The deadlock came after Democrats refused a proposal by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, that would have cleared the way for a floor fight on the Warner resolution in return for votes on two competing Republican alternatives that were more supportive of the president.”
Do you get it now?
Michael, helpful as always, replies:
Do you even understand what you’ve cut’n pasted? Read it again, and concentrate on the part in bold:
“The deadlock came after Democrats refused a proposal by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, that would have cleared the way for a floor fight on the Warner resolution in return for votes on two competing Republican alternatives that were more supportive of the president.”
Translation, the Dems are blocking debate (aka “floor fight”) not the GOP.
Unfortunately this doesn’t sway the Blue Texan, he replies with this:
The Republicans blocked debate via filibuster on a specific, bipartisan non-binding resolution.
That pesky definitional thing again, cloture ends debate Blue Texan, not the other way around. Michael tries to help him with a definition:
You’re entitled to your opinion, but you’re not entitled to just make up new definitions to suit your fancy. Filibuster defined:
“… a filibuster is an attempt to extend debate upon a proposal in order to delay or completely prevent a vote on its passage.”
Even if we generously allow that the filibuster is sometimes used to actually stifle a vote, it does not stifle the debate, and it is being used precisely to widen the terms of the debate in this instance. (Note: Bipartisan? I guess technically, but substantively it has little Republican support.)
He then replies by pointing out that Fox News gets it wrong as well. Somehow I guess he thinks people who have a problem with this are Fox News fans. Once again, appeal to authority because he cannot argue with the actual facts. he just repeats himself.
He also ignores Michael’s point about how differently the media has portrayed votes for cloture in the past. I think you should just take on Stanley Fish in this close reading thing Michael. At least you would have a chance at accomplishing something.
Let me be very clear, I have no problem with the Democrats or Republicans legislative behavior here. The Republicans have every right to try and extend debate and include competing resolutions. The Democrats have every right to try and end debate if further debate is pointless. Obviously given the vote that is not true, but that is no problem for me, they have a right to have a vote to find out.
What I do have a problem with is claiming that something is going on that is not. That the Democrats are spinning doesn’t bother me, it makes it seem as if they have more support than they do, but heck, that is what the political class does. I do have a problem with the media adopting that narrative wholesale and at odds with how they have discussed similar situations in the past. I expect more impartiality and fealty to the truth than that.
Okay, that is wrong, I don’t expect it. I just feel I should be able to.
UPDATE: For a more reasonable and well argued defense of the media, I suggest Poliblogger.
I left my response and disagreements in the comments to his post.
Technorati Tags: cloture, filibuster, Democrats, Republicans, Iraq Resolution
powered by performancing firefox
I would say that I am less trying to defend the media as I am trying to quell the over-reaction to the reportage.
There is general misunderstanding in much of what I have read in regards to whether this situation is analogous to the judicial nomination situation (it isn’t, there is a step missing for nominations that is in play here–indeed, it is that very step that is currently being discussed).
Further, the issue is ultimately about whether a debate that will culminate in an actual vote will be allowed–the current lack of cloture means that that stage will not be entered into. As I noted in my post–the current situation is a debate about whether to have a debate.
My issue here is really one of trying to promote understanding of Senate procedures so that we can all argue about the situation with greater clarity. The media angle is secondary to me.
I will note: nothing that has happened will prevent further resolutions from being written. But if the status quo remains intact, there will be no debates that will be allowed to end in a vote on the resolution(s) in question.
Fair enough Steven, and Thanks for taking the time to go over this.
I don’t really have a beef about with what you are saying,and I agree the coverage is missing clarity. In fact, I guess that is my point. It isn’t the right wing who are getting this wrong, the left has as well and that is because the press has done a miserable job.
That is my angle, I have no problem with whatever the respective parties are doing procedurally as I have already made clear. So, in that case, I have nothing to discuss or argue.
I will also note that if you read my last piece, I do not analogize it to the judicial debate. I analogize it to past coverage of the use of cloture in general. I agree that the nominations are a different matter entirely. All use of cloture shuts off debate, even if it may lead to a different debate. Nothing wrong with that, but in no way is debate about this bill ended either procedurally or substantively. The move to move forward reflects a desire to restrict the scope of the debate, and for understandable tactical reasons. The bill can still move forward as long as the Democrats allow other resolutions to move forward as well.
That being said, I think your post is valuable. You might call our news services and offer to review their copy for adequacy in portraying the events. You might make sure they remove obvious bias in how the two parties are portrayed while you are at it.
I appreciate you stopping by, and I will continue to follow your discussion.
Cheers
Well that’s the part that the MSM has misreported. The Republicans are indeed forestalling a future debate, but they’re doing it by debating now. Furthermore, since the final product is supposed to express the general sense of the Senate, why is debating which resolutions proceed for further debate irrelevant and obstructionist? Quite simply it’s not.
That being said, the reality here is that some Republicans are stalling a vote on a Resolution that slams the “surge” plan, and they’re doing that by introducing watered down Resolutions of their own. But just as that may be the reality, is it not also the reality that there isn’t going to be a debate on the “anti-surge” Resolution? The Dems want to get it put to a vote as quickly as possible, and they will push to end debate ASAP once it reaches the floor.
The sad fact is that the media neither understands the workings of the Senate very well, nor are they terribly concerned about getting the story right. They simply took the Democrat talking points and ran with it, just like they did when the Republicans were in the majority.
Well put Michael. The sausage making isn’t pretty, but I can’t stand the media acting as if one side of this Potemkin sideshow isn’t making sausage as well.
From the NYT:
I ask you, Steven, how is that accurate? The vote was for cloture not to “open debate”. And yes, I do understand that the actual motion is one for cloture on the Motion to Proceed, but look at how the voting is characterized again. Can you honestly say that is accurate?
For one thing, the way NYT frames it, one would look at the vote tallys and expect to find a vote on whether to actually have a debate. Instead, looking at the Congressional Record we find this:
Clearly the vote was to end debate on the Motion to Proceed. No matter how much the MSM may want to frame that as cutting off a debate on Iraq, it simply is not true. Certainly there was debate on just the procedural matters, but there also a great deal of debate regarding just how the proposed Resolution (really a bill) would affect the troops and the war effort in Iraq. For example see here and here for Sen. Lieberman’s rather lengthy discussion of the topic.
In truth, the Republicans are stalling a future debate that is narrower in scope than the one they are having right now over which resolutions will come to the floor. The media may be misunderstanding the Senate procedure, but they are definitely misconstruing the facts.
From my sources in the Senate that is exactly right Michael.
The debate is going on, it is over whether other resolutions can go forward as well, in addition to the debate over the merits of the various resolutions.
My sources say that if the Gregg resolution is included then the Republicans will allow the motion to proceed to go forward followed eventually by a vote. Our characterization has been accurate. Debate continues, the Democrats are unwilling to come to terms that will allow the bill to move forward.
I’ll throw my last log on the fire here, and then I’m done. If we go all the way back to, um, yesterday, and look at the AP report I think the reason Lance and I take such issue becomes clear. Here’s the lede:
That first sentence is simply untrue. The Republicans did no such thing. If anything, they voted to continue expanding the debate.
Are there some accurate facts in that report? Well, yes, but only in a de minimus sense. The last sentence above flat out claims that debate was closed. Not “debate on one resolution that hadn’t reached the floor,” but all debate. That’s just false, and there’s no way around it.
Subsequent reporting did pick up on some of the nuance involved, but they all kept the underlying spin of the AP story: Republicans were responsible for “blocking debate.”
That’s misreporting. In fact, it’s not even reporting, it’s much more like propagandizing. Which is exactly why Lance and I got so exercised over the matter.
Pingback: A Second Hand Conjecture » The Blue Putz Responds-Let Us Restate Things
Pingback: A Second Hand Conjecture » The New York Times Gets It Right