First we get the typical Greenwald tactic, build a strawman (do all his little gang take a class?):
I thought they were kidding, but these people really do believe that every major newspaper in the country has misrepresented this story, that the principled and righteous Republicans really, really, really want to debate Iraq (because they’ve demonstrated this time and time again), and those mean Democrats just won’t let them.
It’s just all very strange.
You would think before writing something like that, you might try and find me saying much of any of that in anything I had written on the subject, don’t you? Oh well, par for the course. I certainly wouldn’t expect him to have looked in vain for somewhere in the past where I ever characterized Republicans as something resembling principled or righteous, or at least more than anyone else. I don’t even consider libertarians more righteous and principled than the general public, but oh well. To be expected from somebody who spends their time on a site devoted to doing anything he can to smear, embarrass or otherwise make one a nuisance to a single blogger (Instapundit.)
For the record, my complaint is that the major media is lazy and picked up the same talking points. As for those “mean Democrats,” as I said before, I have no problem with what either the Republicans or Democrats are doing procedurally, I do expect the media to inform themselves well enough to do it right. This often irritates the left as well. Greenwald himself moans about almost the entire media doing a bad job on many stories, and occasionally he is not only right about that, but actually does a better job than they do, if only on rare occasions.
I also believe that most of the media is more sympathetic to the Democrats, thus inertia leads to herd behavior that is more likely to favor them, though certainly not always (ask Al Gore about that.) Of course someone like Blue Texan cannot imagine that people can just be offended at media incompetence, even when it affects someone you dislike as much as I disliked Al Gore. Nope, we are Bush bots.
I’ll clue you in Blue, I am not a Republican and I actively argued they deserved to lose the last election.
Anyway, for someone to just make up stuff about me suggests we shouldn’t take him too seriously, and he offers no substantive arguments at all of his own. Unless you count this:
Read the comments. “Err, well, I may be wrong, but the press is still wrong. The left is wrong. Everyone is wrong. But read Blue Texan’s link.”
He obviously had trouble following the discussion. By the Blue Texan link I guess he means Poliblogger, though I had linked to Poliblogger, previous to him. A little self centered, but hey, at least he did link to Poliblogger, who has some important points to make. Nor did I say we (I assume we means to include Michael?) might be wrong, or that everyone is wrong or the left for that matter.
In fact, I think this is the only time I mentioned the left was in talking with Steven about the media giving us all lousy coverage. Maybe that is what he means? If so, talk about not doing nuance. I am actually not arguing the media is wrong, but that the media is spinning. There is a difference. I looked back through my posts and actually the word wrong doesn’t appear in regards to the media, I use the terms spin and spinning.
He doesn’t respond to any of the actual arguments, or evidence such as the disparate treatment the media has given this type of issue from previous posts, but his comprehension seems a bit low, so maybe it was all a bit too much to understand.
What I can say is he had the good sense to link to some people who actually have a clue about this, Josh Marshal (via the carpetbagger report) and Poliblogger. They have some pieces to add to the puzzle, so lets leave the lightweight Greenwald and go to Poliblogger also known as Steven Taylor.
Steven has helpfully given us a breakdown of the ways debate is being used in this situation:
1) Debate over whether to accept the motion to proceed, which requires a cloture vote. In essence, this is a debate about whether to have a debate. (Put another way, whether the Senate should move on to #2).2) Debate over a resolution that would lead to a vote on the resolution
3) General discussion about these topics, both in the public and within the Senate.
So good so far. I part with Steven starting here:
In terms of recent coverage, specifically as it pertains to S.470, the reports that the Republicans are blocking debate (as defined in #2 above) is correct–and apoplexy on this point is pointless and unproductive.
Hmm…, well in reading back over my posts I don’t get the sense I am one of the ones being apoplectic, so I’ll slide by that. Let us look back at the original post from the AP that caught my eye:
Republicans Block Senate Debate on Iraq
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.
“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.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky described the test vote as merely a “bump in the road†and added that GOP lawmakers “welcome the debate and are happy to have it.â€
Now, when readers read this, under that headline, they were they supposed to gather that what the AP meant was that there was a motion to proceed? Even then, where is the discussion about the Republicans actually pushing for a debate including the Gregg resolution? This entire article makes it seem as if the Republicans are trying to squash debate on the topic and move on.
Now I am sure that is what they would love to happen, but the fact is that is not what they are trying to accomplish, so no, I don’t buy that they are talking about, or at least conveying that they are talking about, #2 in some narrow sense. They obviously are using #1 and conflating it in the publics mind with sense #2 and #3. If that isn’t the intention then that is certainly the impression most on all sides of the issue initially concluded.
Of course the real spin comes in using the term “blocked.” One can argue that in some sense that the Republicans are blocking the opportunity for the measure to get a vote, but the Republicans have made clear they are ready for the resolution to move forward and have a chance at a vote as long as they get to do the same with the Gregg resolution.
So, the AP and others could have said the Democrats blocked ongoing debate over that topic. It is at least as legitimate a way to phrase this. The media also could have claimed that the Democrats tried to force the resolution to the floor for debate and a vote, while blocking consideration of the Gregg resolution. That is probably the most accurate characterization. They also could have characterized the whole thing in more neutral terms.
That they instead chose none of those paths and instead accepted the Democratic spin is a problem, especially considering the disparate treatment of Republicans in other similar situations.
It is correct, however, that in terms of definitions #1 and #3 that debate continues unabated.
No problem with that.
Still, in terms of something passing the Senate, #2 is the only sense of “debate†that matters.
Now, this is true, but of course that debate can still be forthcoming, and the Republicans say they are willing to allow it, if they get to put the Gregg resolution up for consideration as well.
Democrats and much of the press means #2 when they say “debate†in the context of S.470.
Now Blue Texan seems to disagree with Steven in my quote above. He says that the issue is Republicans don’t want to debate Iraq, though empirically that seems pretty hard to square with everything that they said today. As Steven notes above, that debate is going on and it is quite vigorous. Obviously Blue Texan thinks it means debate in the sense of #3, or at least #3 is part of what he thinks it means, so Democrats didn’t automatically get it. Further I have read a lot of comments from Democrats, including politicians, that sound like they are conflating all three to me. I am not exercised by that, but it is the impression and the spin being adopted by the media that concerns me here. Vague (I am being kind) coverage such as we have looked at here allows these conflations to be effective.
Republicans and many in the rightish Blogosphere mean either #1 or #3 when they use the word “debate†in this context, referring to S.407, the Gregg language and any number of other possibilities.
True, and that is not only appropriate, but given the media coverage, necessary since the media and Democrats are doing so as well.
Fine, but what are the Republicans and Democrats really up to?
Good question. I’ll look at Josh Marshall and some others to break that down and leave the media behind in my next post. To put it in short hand, both are maneuvering for the best outcome politically they can. If the media wants to put a negative spin on things, that has a lot of fertile ground.
Technorati Tags: Iraq, Republicans, Democrats, Senate, Resolutions, Warner-Levin, Gregg resolution
powered by performancing firefox
I woke up this morning, my wife had on CBS, and what does Hannah Storm say “We can’t even agree to have a debate about the war in Iraq.”
I don’t think that kind of stuff is getting all the nuances across to the American public. Schieffer afterwards was better, but he didn’t clear up what Hannah meant.
The meme has been loosed, and nothing can really be done about it now. I will say this, WaPo radio at least (and I’ll assume the WaPo itself) appears to have moved on to the actual politics of the situation, and is complaining about the “procedural wrangling” going on in the Senate over a non-binding resolution. This morning they were discussing what the political risks to both the Democrats and the Republicans are over the maneuvering. That is reporting, not the stuff that was derived from the AP story.
I agree, since the initial reports the reporting has improved. The spin has not been purged, but it is less blatant and surrounded by more facts.
Pingback: A Second Hand Conjecture » The New York Times Gets It Right