Plenty Of Blame To Go Around

The NY Times diligently carries water for its Democrats with this headline:

G.O.P. Senators Block Debate on Iraq Policy

Oh, please - as the text eventually makes clear, the Democrats first blocked debate on a Republican amendment, and both sides are trying to blame the other for the breakdown.  Interesting that the Times favored the Democratic spin.  Here we go with emphasis added:

Feb. 5 — 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.

The decision short-circuited what had been building as the first major Congressional challenge to President Bush over his handling of the war since Democrats took control of Congress last month, and left each party blaming the other for frustrating debate on a topic that is likely to influence the 2008 presidential and Congressional races.

At issue is a compromise resolution drawn up chiefly by Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, that says the Senate disagrees with President Bush’s plan to build up troops and calls for American forces to be kept out of sectarian violence in Iraq.

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.

One of those alternatives, by Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, would declare that Congress should not cut off any funds for forces in the field. That vote was seen as problematic for Democrats because many of them opposed any move to curtail spending, raising the prospect that it could have attracted the broadest support in the Senate.

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.

The Democrats want to embarrass the President, the Republicans want to embarrass the Democrats, and the Times manages to embarrass itself.

MORE:  McQ pushes back against the Times, WaPo, and AP.  Happy hunting!

STILL MORE:  Glenn Reynolds does his usual good job, with lots of links.

Comments

[danking70]

I've always thought that cloture is a move to end debate?

[Great Banana]

I don't recall the times being against a filibuster in the past. I guess they only like it when the dems use it.

[lurker]

Which Collins and Coleman voted in favor of cloture.

[hit and run]

I'm not obsessed or anything, but when I saw that title, I instinctively was going to "correct" Tom and say it should be "Plenty of Plame to Go Around".

Which, may yet be a post title...for a Mitchell appearance on the stand?

[maryrose]

H&R:
You crack me up! I thought the same thing.
Kudos to the Repubs for putting Harry{illegal land deal like Whitewater} Reid on the ropes. Trent Lott on Fox news was back to his old fighting spirit. Take that dems!

[hit and run]

maryrose - actually, I do feel a little guilty because I really am (in the last few days, actually) starting to become obsessed with the trial. For months I suppose I've been commenting here - mostly because this is such a great group of people that tolerate the levity I try an add. I always had an interest in the Plame Kerffufle, but in the beginning it was only at the Tom's posts level.

And now? I awoke this morning going over yesterday's trial in my mind.

And that's BEFORE thinking of the next joke I could make on this board!!!!!!

What is my world coming to!!!!!!

[Neo]

Republicans on Monday blocked Senate debate on a bipartisan ...

A line that we will probably see a lot of in the future.

But it is important to understand the meaning of the words, using the Barry-Byrd Unabridged Dictionary of DC Terminology.

The word "debate" should be given special attention. The word "debate" when used by Senators (and to a lesser degree Congressones) has nothing whatsoever to do with what happens on the floor of the Senate. Us lesser mortals may believe that this is what they do on the floor of the Senate, but, in the proper framing, the word "debate" is what happens when Senators and their staff leak their entire position on a bill or item of public policy, with ready to publish text, to the WaPo and NYT. You debate in the media, not like the Greeks on the floor of the Senate.

Now given this correction in the use of the term "debate", we can now see that the phrase takes on a new, clearer, meaning