Republicans blocked a full-fledged Senate debate over Iraq on Monday, but Democrats vowed to find a way to force President Bush to change course in a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops.

That first sentence is simply untrue. The Republicans did no such thing. If anything, they voted to continue expanding the debate.

“We must heed the results of the November elections and the wishes of the American people,” said Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Reid, D-Nev., spoke moments before a vote that sidetracked a nonbinding measure expressing disagreement with Bush’s plan to deploy an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.

The vote was 49-47, or 11 short of the 60 needed to go ahead with debate, and left the fate of the measure uncertain.

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.

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.

The procedural vote, which divided mostly along party lines, left the Democratic leadership 11 votes short of the 60 needed to begin debate on the bipartisan resolution. Forty-seven Democrats and two Republicans voted to open debate on the resolution; 45 Republicans and one independent were opposed.

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:

CLOTURE MOTION

Under the previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 19, S. 470, Bipartisan Iraq legislation.
Carl Levin, Joe Biden, Ken Salazar, Harry Reid, Pat Leahy, Sherrod Brown, Patty Murray, Robert Menendez, John F. Kerry, Barbara Mikulski, Dick Durbin, Jack Reed, Tom Harkin, Dianne Feinstein, Bill Nelson, H.R. Clinton, Herb Kohl, Ben Nelson.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.

The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the motion to proceed to S. 470, a bill to express the sense of the Congress on Iraq, shall be brought to a close?

The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.