This was one of the topics discussed at a conservative bloggers briefing that I attended this afternoon: the media are complaining that Senate Republicans are shutting off a debate on Iraq war policy by, well, voting against shutting off debate.
"What?!" you say. I feel ya. So did Townhall.com blogger Mary Katharine Ham, who argues that reporters guilty of this sin of commission need to get religion and read up on the journalist's bible, the AP Stylebook:
Now, why is Fox the only outlet reporting that the "Democratic majority failed to shut off debate" instead of the Republicans succeeded in blocking debate. I am no parliamentary expert, that's for sure, but I do know cloture ends debate. So, how do Republicans voting against ending debate get accused of ending debate?
Since, I'm no parliamentary expert, I went to the AP Stylebook to check myself. After all, maybe I was wrong about the definition of cloture:
cloture: Not closure, for the parliamentary procedure for closing debate. Whenever practical, use a phrase such as closing debate or ending debate instead of the technical term.Um, so what's with all the leads on these stories? Even AP doesn't know its own definition, apparently:
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.Did they, now? Perhaps there's a different AP Stylebook for when Democrats are in the majority-- an edition I have yet to be issued, which changes the definition of cloture to the exact opposite of what it is.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Well, gee, how hard is it t
February 6, 2007 - 17:32 ET by dervishWell, gee, how hard is it to follow their new rules? If necessary to paint conservatives in a bad light, up is down, black is white, wrong is right, increase is decrease, stop is continue, good is bad -- and of course, all of that vice versa. Pretty simple, really.
Words mean things
February 6, 2007 - 18:51 ET by CharliedocLest we forget, that an increase in spending, that is not as great as the Libtards demanded is known as a "Draconian Cut" in funding.
Great detection of more liber
February 6, 2007 - 17:37 ET by HumanEventsGreat detection of more liberal speak. Increasing spending by a lesser rate is a cut. A woman having an abortion is exercising her reproductive rights.
The real purpose, of course, is to make Republicans and Bush look like the bad guys.
Did anyone really expect the
February 6, 2007 - 17:52 ET by bigtimerDid anyone really expect the press and the msm report this any different than they did...really?
I've been watching this in the press and in the msm...also I have had it to C-Span and the Senate all day, in fact I just turned it with Rocket-Man Nelson speaking now...
I am afraid the republicans will bend and give in to the will of the dem's, they (Reid) are threatening since last night to include going to the media and saying they (McConnell) are going to shut the gov't. down now if the votes at least for CR on the federal budget does not get through by the 15th, I can't think of the right term at the moment, it may be the Appropriation Bill...they are going to try and twist this around and blame the republicans if this happens and Reid brought up Gingrich to try and make them cringe.....(what the media did to Gingrich when he was speaker and blamed him for shutting the govt. down, with Judy Woodridge and CNN leading the way in earnest)
it is going to be interesting....I hope not disappointing again, they need to take a stand and the air-waves...not be afraid of the media...it is way past time they have some balls...or something resembling them.
Btw...Warner makes me ill.
So "cloture" isn't
February 6, 2007 - 17:57 ET by ucSo "cloture" isn't the successful self dressing of nearly cutting a thumb off with a circular saw and not needing a doctor present? That was my first emotional guess.
Another of my predictions (ac
February 6, 2007 - 18:07 ET by mattmAnother of my predictions (actually any number of intelligent people have predicted this) come true! After blocking Social Security Reform, and other legislation, after stealing control of the Senate by getting jumpin' Jim Jeffords to become an "independent", and after stalling and blocking many judicial nominations, now that they're in the majority, they're complaining about Republicans "blocking" debate! Ha!
TRUTH is NOT Important!
February 6, 2007 - 18:33 ET by ChasvsThe TRUTH has never been a LIBERAL strong point. TRUTH doesn't matter as long as their issue is furthered by the MSM!
Nice try, Ken. The questio
February 6, 2007 - 18:54 ET by JMSUNice try, Ken. The question you bring up is, what exactly did the Senate vote on last night? A "Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 470; A bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq."
The Senate was not voting on whether to end debate on Levin's Iraq Escalation Resolution. In fact, they were voting whether to end debate on whether they should even consider the Levin resolution. So, it is entirely fair - nay, accurate - to characterize this as the Republicans, minus Coleman and Collins (both up for re-election in 2008), blocking floor debate of the escalation in Iraq.
Once they do that, they canno
February 6, 2007 - 19:11 ET by bigtimerOnce they do that, they cannot have any other resolutions (unless already agreed to by both sides) brought up in the Levin Bill, therefore the republicans can have no offers of their own resolutions...therefore votes on them.
btw..once they vote on cloture it usually shows, (I say usually) how the vote is going to go after the alloted time for the debate.
The McCain/Lieberman and the Gregg resloution should be allowed to be debated and voted on.
The dem's are getting fed their own medicine..I watched them for years do this constantly with the filibusters. (Especially the judges.)
Incorrect, bigtimer.Once the
February 6, 2007 - 19:21 ET by JMSUIncorrect, bigtimer.
Once the Iraq Escalation Resolution is brought up for consideration (which is all an 'aye' vote means), Senators would be able to offer amendments. Unanimous consent, or failing that a second cloture motion, would be required to end debate on the Iraq Escalation Resolution. Only then would it be voted on.
You are totally misrepresenting the fight on the Senate Floor.
February 6, 2007 - 19:25 ET by acaiguanaYou are totally misrepresenting the fight on the Senate Floor.
Why do you do that?
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Your homework for tonight: th
February 6, 2007 - 19:30 ET by JMSUYour homework for tonight: the Standing Rules of the Senate.
Happy reading!
Avoidance does not become you JMSU.
February 6, 2007 - 19:56 ET by acaiguanaAvoidance does not become you JMSU.
The debate in the Senate is over how many resolutions can be considered. The Republicans want an open floor for Resolutions, the Democrats want to limit debate to one or two.
I know that is a little tough for you to follow, mired as you seem to be in procedural rules; but the dirty little secret is that the Democrats want to control all the debate on the floor to either their single resolution condemming Bush's plan or possible allowing McCain's resolution to supporting Bush's plan.
Pretty limited debate there, huh?
You are typical of Liberals who come onto this site. You have twice tried to change the subject on me and it isn't working out too well for ya, huh?
When you come here and say, 'nice try', then you might want to reassess your ability to debate yourself.
Without changing the subject, would you not agree that cloture will 'end' debate rather than keep debate open? And if this is true (pretty hard to argue it isn't, but I'm used to Democrats calling blue - purple) then painting the Republicans as stifling debate is pretty disingenous.
In fact some would call it an outright propagandistic lie.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
You asked: "Without chan
February 6, 2007 - 20:05 ET by JMSUYou asked: "Without changing the subject, would you not agree that cloture will 'end' debate rather than keep debate open?"
Invoking Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 470 would only end debate on whether S. 470 should be considered by the Senate. The Senate, assuming the Motion to Proceed also passed, would then have unlimited debate on this resolution, again, fully open to amendment. Of course, a vote on final passage of this resolution would not yet be assured. The Senate would have to find unanimous consent to move to a vote, or cloture would have to be invoked on the underlying resolution.
JMSU - You're kidding me right?
February 6, 2007 - 20:11 ET by acaiguanaJMSU - You're kidding me right?
You said: "...would only end debate on whether S. 470 should be considered by the Senate." (my emphasis)
Geez, so the Democrats are trying to 'end' debate, not the Republicans?
How silly of me to assume that the debate about the issues to be debated needs to end in order to have a debate.
You Liberals are so boring. I only get involved with one of you when you are asserting such incredible crap that I think it ought to be called what it is...
crap.
Now that you agree with me that the so-called Republican blocking of 'debate' is BS; go back to reading your Senate Rule book. I'm sure you are very good at that
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Btw...they can stop an amendm
February 6, 2007 - 19:37 ET by bigtimerBtw...they can stop an amendment if they declare it non-Germain to Levins bill.
Which they will.
Wrong again! There is no ge
February 6, 2007 - 19:41 ET by JMSUWrong again! There is no germaneness rule to amendments in the Senate.
Well, they stopped Gregg toda
February 6, 2007 - 19:44 ET by bigtimerWell, they stopped Gregg today with being able to present his resolution since they saiid he wouldn't be able to add an amendment...that is the reason the gave...Harry Reid himself...did you listen to it?
JMSU - This is exactly what drives thinking people nuts.
February 6, 2007 - 19:16 ET by acaiguanaJMSU - This is exactly what drives thinking people nuts.
The Democrat leadership was trying to close off debate on whether other resolutions could be voted upon. The Republicans are not interested in a one-sided debate about a purely Democrat censure of President Bush. The Republicans want a real debate on Iraq and the Democrats want only a debate on a silly non-binding resolution that a lot of people really disagree about and feel is threatening to our troop morale and sends the wrong message to the enemy.
The Democats want to send a message to their enemy, George Bush.
Now, to portray the Republicans as avoiding debate in this situation is like saying that the US is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. It is disingenous at best and an outright attempt to mislead the American public at the worst.
This depiction of the Republican position is false and misleading.
But you know that.
You simply don't care. You are invested in the United States losing this war and cannot at any level allow for any chance for the enemy to think the country is united to win it. You cannot allow anything other than a resolution that will encourage the enemy to hang in there until America defeats itself.
Right out of the terrorist handbook. Terror is designed to frighten people and the Democrats are frightened now that the war might actually turn around and then they are going to have to eat a whole lot of crow.
Not that they will ever admit to any of this, of course.
So, nice try JMSU, but it doesn't fool anyone.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
This rhetoric simply amazes m
February 6, 2007 - 19:28 ET by JMSUThis rhetoric simply amazes me. Do you really believe this?
And, how do you feel about Senator John Warner and his resolution?
John Warner is up for re-elec
February 6, 2007 - 19:34 ET by bigtimerJohn Warner is up for re-election, he is a simple coward IMO...I have watched him for years destroy a lot of good things JMSU...or attempt to...including the poor rights of the terrorists with the torture bills and amendments. I widhed allen would run against the old RINO.
Btw...I may not be able to explain it with the legalise you are twisting it to be..but I know what the dem's are doing very well thank you very much.
...and it is to hurt this country and our President.
They disgust me.
Is it fair to say that these
February 6, 2007 - 19:39 ET by JMSUIs it fair to say that these sentiments apply to Senators Susan Collins, Chuck Hagel, and Olympia Snowe, all Republican cosponsors of the Warner resolution? And, of course, Senator Norm Coleman, who voted to debate the Iraq Escalation Resolution?
Do these "moderate" Republicans hate America, and hope we lose the Global War on Terror?
Of course it does...as I have
February 6, 2007 - 19:58 ET by bigtimerOf course it does...as I have posted before.
btw...the only binding resolution that the Senate should be voting on is a vote for "No Retreat.... Until Defeat!
The Gutless Wonders....
RINO's and dem's with the exception of Lieberman are absolutely disgraces to this country.
"Do these "moderate" Republic
February 6, 2007 - 21:08 ET by TexasOptimist"Do these "moderate" Republicans hate America...?
Perhaps not, but they place too high a priority on preserving their political lives.
Merry Christmas 2007.
JMSU - Rhetoric? Amazes you?
February 6, 2007 - 19:36 ET by acaiguanaJMSU - Rhetoric? Amazes you?
My gosh, I'm sorry, I'm debating a comedian here.
OK, I can understand why you would be amazed by my 'rhetoric' as the simplistic point of view you have chosen to represent the debate in the Senate does in fact demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issues.
I forgive that. You are probably just repeating what you have heard other people say.
Changing the subject to John Warner's resolution isn't going to work with me. Nice try though.
The Republicans want the Senate to vote on more than one single resolution which encourages vigorous debate (and exposes the Democrats for what they really are). That would put the Republicans on the side of an expanded debate, but of course, as stated above, you know that.
Obfuscation of this issue doesn't change the cowardly attempt by Democrats to stifle debate.
Rule of the Democrats. Accuse the other side of doing exactly what you are doing.
What are they so afraid of in expanded debate for more than one resolution?
You give yourself away when you talk about only one resolution as the accepted way to go. It isn't the accepted way to go.
I'm proud the Republicans have stood up in the face of the Charade.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
"The Senate was not vo
February 6, 2007 - 19:21 ET by ckc1227"The Senate was not voting on whether to end debate on Levin's Iraq Escalation Resolution. In fact, they were voting whether to end debate on whether they should even consider the Levin resolution. So, it is entirely fair - nay, accurate - to characterize this as the Republicans, minus Coleman and Collins (both up for re-election in 2008), blocking floor debate of the escalation in Iraq."
Who really cares? What they need to do is stop wasting taxpayer time and money on these non-binding resolutions that are meaningless. If they want to get on the record as opposing the plan drawn up by the general they confirmed last week in a non-binding way, issue a press release and get on to the business of running this country. Or, better yet, grow some balls and act in a binding way and move to remove funding.
Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid.
You asked: "Who really c
February 6, 2007 - 19:35 ET by JMSUYou asked: "Who really cares? What they need to do is stop wasting taxpayer time and money on these non-binding resolutions that are meaningless."
Senators salaries' are not determined by the amount of time spent debating and voting on legislation, nor do staff budgets increase based on the five-day workweek Democrats brought to Washington, D.C. since taking control of Congress.
Did you work for Mark Foley b
February 6, 2007 - 19:41 ET by bigtimerDid you work for Mark Foley by any chance JMSU?
A plant put in by Rahm Emanuel? Schumer...
Giving yourself away here....
LMAO!
...Really?
February 6, 2007 - 19:49 ET by JMSU...Really?
...Really?
February 6, 2007 - 19:49 ET by JMSU-duplicate-
Whew. That was funny. You are
February 6, 2007 - 20:32 ET by Roger the ShrubberWhew. That was funny. You are living up to your namesake, Just Make Sh*t Up...
Five day workweek except for football games
February 7, 2007 - 04:26 ET by UnsaneYou mean the five-day-workweek-except-in-cases-of-dire-emergencies? You know, like the national championship in college football?
Besides, the five-day workweek for Congress really is a bad idea. I'd rather see Congress do LESS, not more. If they do more, they have more opportunity to screw things up.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Ha ha ha yeah really. Hilario
February 7, 2007 - 09:02 ET by HumanEventsHa ha ha yeah really. Hilarious how the Dems took off the very first Monday after they said they wanted a five day work week again. Most of the time the Congress will show up on Monday afternoon (if at all) and leave for the weekend Friday morning (if not Thursday) and I guess in that case you can technically call it a five day work week. (But don't try that in any real job).
Yes, the less Congress shows up the better off we are. What a blessing it would be if they took the whole year off! By the way, I wonder how many votes in the Senate the next 2 years Hillary will show up for. 3% maybe? (i.e. the ones that she'll need to show she had a recorded vote on in the fall of 2008 scampaign). Here she spent all of 2006 right up until the election refusing to comment on if she was going to run for the White House, saying "I'm just focused on the New York Senate race." What for? All you do is scampaign for President now.
Well, that was what for.
A bill to express the sense
February 6, 2007 - 19:49 ET by Jack BauerA bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq."
If the Democrats truly wanted to express the sense of Congress, then they would bend over backwards, in a non-partisan, way to ensure that they could bring along the minority party; ar at least a substantial number of them.
Simple. The fact that they didn't indicates that they are just playing partisan games.
And I think you mean the non-binding sense of Congress. For what that's worth. Which is nothing, of course.
This is exactly the reason wh
February 6, 2007 - 19:54 ET by JMSUThis is exactly the reason why Democrats are supporting Senator John Warner (R-VA)'s resolution.
And Warner's Democrat resolution is exactly why the don't want
February 6, 2007 - 20:03 ET by acaiguanaAnd Warner's Democrat resolution is exactly why they don't want debate.
See? It's pretty clear to anyone who looks at it. Don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that the Democrats are trying to stifle debate.
I have to admit its pretty clever to say Republicans are blocking debate because they won't let the thing rest with the resolutions being offered.
Resolutions need to be allowed and voted upon that represent all sides of the debate, not just one or two.
But you wouldn't like that because some of these resolutions actually say things like, the Senate won't make any effort to block off funds for the War.
Pretty much trying to run the war here aren't we? Nice Try.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Your claim: "[I] wouldn'
February 6, 2007 - 20:08 ET by JMSUYour claim: "[I] wouldn't like that because some of these resolutions actually say things like, the Senate won't make any effort to block off funds for the War."
Here's a provision in the Warner Resolution:
Want to guess exactly the con
February 6, 2007 - 20:18 ET by JMSUWant to guess exactly the contents of the Gregg Resolution?
See above.
We are not debating the Warner Resolution there ol JMSU.
February 6, 2007 - 20:19 ET by acaiguanaWe are not debating the Warner Resolution there ol' JMSU. Our debate is finished. See above.
You run off and debate your resolutions with someone else. I'm frankly not remotely interested in Warner's resolution and to be quite truthful, I'm not interested in the Senate or the House passing any resolutions.
Why? Because these resolutions are nothing but cheap Political tricks being played with the lives of our troops; the morale of the United States populance; the enemy's morale; and an overriding hatred of George Bush.
They are cheap attempts by politicians to insert into the American body politic a wedge to be levered in political campaigns that have nothing to do with the security of this country; the seriousness of the War on Terror; or the future of this country (except the Democrats want to have it all - - too bad for the next two years).
Ha Ha.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Just responding to one of you
February 6, 2007 - 20:25 ET by JMSUJust responding to one of your claims, friend.
If you are cleverly trying to say I don't know what is in...
February 6, 2007 - 20:42 ET by acaiguanaIf you are cleverly trying to say I don't know what is in these resolutions, you are completely correct. We were not debating that. We were debating the silly canard that Republicans were stifling debate. Which I demolished by your own words.
If you want to know why I don't know nor care what is in these resolutions, read my post directly above.
That's it for me tonight with you.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
February 7, 2007 - 04:56 ET by old croOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh, JMSU
Even now, much later, that's got to hurt.
You might want to put some ice on that.
"Half the lies they tell me aren't true."
.....Yogi Berra
That is exactly the reason
February 7, 2007 - 05:13 ET by Jack BauerThat is exactly the reason why Democrats are refusing to debate the Gregg resolution.
That and not wanting to be put on the Senate record as opposing any attempts to cut or eliminate funding for troops in the field, so when they renege on it in 2008, it can't be used against them by the Republicans in an election year.
And if you could be remotely honest in your analysis then this little post debate would go easier. But alas not.