More Bias
Written by YellowJacket on February 6th, 2007‘GOP Blocks Senate Debate on Troop Buildup.’ So says the MSNBC headline about the vote for cloture that failed for the Warner-Levin non-resolution resolution expressing disapproval for the “surge” plan that is already going into effect in Baghdad.
From Wikipedia:
In parliamentary procedure, cloture (pr: KLO-cher) (also called closure, and sometimes a guillotine) is a motion or process aimed at bringing debate to a quick end.
I already linked to RedState’s outing of CNN on its failure to report the truth earlier today.
Since when is blocking cloture, which means extending debate on the bill at hand, blocking Senate debate? Apparently, according to the media, it’s when Republicans are the ones voting against cloture.
7
AM
It kind of makes sense of you define “debate” as “voting” and not as, well, debating….
7
AM
Yeah… if you take the definition of cloture to be the exact opposite of what it does mean, I guess the media is spot-on here!
7
AM
Since when is blocking cloture, which means extending debate on the bill at hand, blocking Senate debate?
Did we let the Democrats play this sort of semantic game when they were blocking judges? No. Just because it suits the GOP now doesn’t make this sort of trick worth the unconstitutional paper it’s printed on. We aren’t talking about Jefferson Smith here.
7
AM
Woodroe, there’s a huge difference between not voting for cloture to stall a bill to get equal consideration for other bills (especially when the bill, according to the new General in Iraq, will be damaging to troop morale and encouraging the enemy) and refusing to hold an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees who have gone through the process.
7
AM
Isn’t discussing the bill at all (and having it plastered all over the news and internet) damaging to troop morale and encouraging the enemy?
7
PM
Yeah of course.
Tell that to Sens. Warner, Levin, Reid, Hagel, Coleman, Collins, and the entire Democratic caucus in both houses of Congress.
8
AM
I’ve been really busy the last few weeks and I’m a bit behind on this issue. Correct me if I’m wrong, but members of the Senate (both parties) are discussing a bill that says “We don’t support the President’s plan in Iraq”, but doesn’t actually do anything to stop said plan? What is the theoretical purpose of this?
8
AM
To slap Bush on the wrist and gain some political points without manning up and actually doing something constructive.