Republican Filibusters: How hard is it for reporters to make it clear exactly who's obstructing?

[seafan]

Republican Filibusters

By Kevin Drum
September 19, 2007

(Political Animal) GOP FILIBUSTERS....I see that Republicans have successfully filibustered two more bills today: one to give a House seat to the District of Columbia (57-42) and one to restore habeas corpus rights to terrorism suspects (56-43).

That seems like a good excuse to rerun this chart that McClatchy put together a couple of months ago. As you can see, Republicans aren't just obstructing legislation at normal rates. They're obstructing legislation at three times the usual rate. They're absolutely desperate to keep this stuff off the president's desk, where the only choice is to either sign it or else take the blame for a high-profile veto.

As things stand, though, Republicans will largely avoid blame for their tactics. After all, the first story linked above says only that the DC bill "came up short in the Senate" and the second one that the habeas bill "fell short in the Senate." You have to read with a gimlet eye to figure out how the vote actually broke down, and casual readers will come away thinking that the bills failed because of some kind of generic Washington gridlock, not GOP obstructionism.

So, for the record, here are the votes. On the habeas bill, Democrats and Independents voted 50-1 in favor. Republicans voted 42-8 against. On the DC bill, Democrats and Independents voted 49-1 in favor. Republicans voted 41-8 against. Would it really be so hard for reporters to make it clear exactly who's responsible for blocking these bills?

Senate tied in knots by filibusters

By Margaret Talev
July 20, 2007

WASHINGTON — This year Senate Republicans are threatening filibusters to block more legislation than ever before, a pattern that's rooted in — and could increase — the pettiness and dysfunction in Congress.

.....

Seven months into the current two-year term, the Senate has held 42 "cloture" votes aimed at shutting off extended debate — filibusters, or sometimes only the threat of one — and moving to up-or-down votes on contested legislation. Under Senate rules that protect a minority's right to debate, these votes require a 60-vote supermajority in the 100-member Senate.
Democrats have trouble mustering 60 votes; they've fallen short 22 times so far this year. That's largely why they haven't been able to deliver on their campaign promises.

By sinking a cloture vote this week, Republicans successfully blocked a Democratic bid to withdraw combat troops from Iraq by April, even though a 52-49 Senate majority voted to end debate.
This year Republicans also have blocked votes on immigration legislation, a no-confidence resolution for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and major legislation dealing with energy, labor rights and prescription drugs.

.....

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., forced an all-night session on the Iraq war this week to draw attention to what Democrats called Republican obstruction.
"The minority party has decided we have to get to 60 votes on almost everything we vote on of substance," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. "That's not the way this place is supposed to work."

Even Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., who's served in Congress since 1973, complained that "the Senate is spiraling into the ground to a degree that I have never seen before, and I've been here a long time. All modicum of courtesy is going out the window."

.....

Some Republicans say that Reid forces cloture votes just so he complain that they're obstructing him.

.....

Republican Senate leader McConnell said Friday in a news conference that when he became minority leader, "it was not my goal to see us do nothing. I mean, you can always use the next election as a rationale for not doing anything. But as you all know, we've had a regularly scheduled election every two years since 1788, so there's always an election right around the corner."

.....

Standing on One Principle, Voting on Another

By Dana Milbank
Thursday, September 20, 2007; A02

Just two months ago, the courtly Virginia Republican (John Warner) went to the Senate floor and sided with his Democratic colleague from the commonwealth, Jim Webb, on a plan that would shorten troop deployments in Iraq. Yesterday, he went to the same place to announce that he would now vote against the same bill.

"I endorsed it," Warner said. "I intend now to cast a vote against it."

With those dozen words, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee put a surprise end to the latest efforts in Congress to limit the Iraq war.

Democrats had been hoping that Warner, who last month endorsed the start of a pullout from Iraq, would bring enough Republicans with him to vote for their best plan to accelerate the troop withdrawal: Webb's plan to limit the troops' deployments. But this effort, like previous ones, ended in failure.

To reiterate, how difficult would it be for Big Media to explain just who is blocking these bills?



Edited to add from the Milbank piece:

Webb was rather less pleased to discover that Warner had retreated from their shared foxhole. The White House "turned up the political heat, and that made people, like particularly Senator Warner, uncomfortable," he deduced.

And when did Webb learn of the betrayal? "Um," Webb replied, "he told me five minutes before the debate began this morning."

But then, Warner explained how officials at the Pentagon had convinced him that Webb was wrong to try to extend troops' rest times. "I say to my good friend from Virginia, I agree with the principles that you've laid down in your amendment, but," he concluded, "I regret to say that I've been convinced by those in the professional uniform."

After that, senators went through the motions of deliberating -- "We're struggling and groping," said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) -- but it was just for show. Warner had sealed the fate of the debate -- and, for now at least, the U.S. troop presence in Iraq. Warner arrived toward the end of the vote. He lingered at the clerk's table to admire his handiwork: The antiwar senators had 56 votes, four short of the number they needed.

Senator Warner, you obviously did not listen to those in the professional uniform who wrote "The War as We Saw It" in the NY Times, August 19, 2007.

Two of those seven brave soldiers are http://editorandpublisher.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Two+of+Seven+Soldiers+Who+Wrote+%27NYT%27+Op-Ed+Die+in+Iraq&expire=&urlID=23885571&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.editorandpublisher.com%2Feandp%2Fnews%2Farticle_display.jsp%3Fvnu_content_id%3D1003638726&partnerID=60">now dead, and a third is recovering from being shot in the head.


Get out of this Senate now. You are not fit to serve this country.



(Bold type added)

[Greyhound]

1. The reporters can say anything they want but it will never get on air or be printed.

They are owned by the same corporations that own our politicians, and they will not let it out.

Welcome to the future. How are you liking it so far?

[MiniMe]

2. Its easy, if you WANT to make it clear

Do they want to, that is the question.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Don't know. I called my local news station 29/40 this morning at 6:30AM to

complain about their 'news copy'. Told them I was sick to death of their 'spin' on everything. I told the producer that the story wasn't, "Senate rejects limitations on military deployment", but it was that GOP Senators who constantly go on about 'supporting the troops' blocked the plan and that all Democratic Senators voted for it.

I also told them to tell the perky little anchor girl that announcing 'Arkansas makes the Top Ten List' was such a good thing when she was talking about the number of women killed in domestic violence. Yes, once again my true red state ranks amongst the highest per capita in killing 'loved ones'.

[AuntPatsy]

4. Give you a kick for something that needs to be seen by all who read DU

[seafan]

5. Thank you, AuntPatsy. Today is just too much. There is a stench in Congress.

....along with the stench in the White House, the media and the Supreme Court.

[AuntPatsy]

6. I don't watch the news in order to garner the truth, I have hope the majority of

citizens in this country don't either, so lets ensure the truth is found and fought for on the net?